Judgment :- Heard both sides. 2. The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 2nd respondent dated 111. 1999 as well as the 1st respondents orders dated 25.02.2000, 15.06.2000, 23.01.2002, 13.07.2002, 05.06.2003 and for a consequential direction to reinstate the petitioner in service as Soldier (clerk) with all consequential benefits. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 08.09.2003 and in the application for interim direction to pay certain amounts due to the petitioner only notice was ordered. A counter affidavit dated 16.07.2004 was filed by the respondents. 4. Subsequently the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.25600 of 2004 seeking for a direction to the respondents to constitute a Medical Board to seek a fresh opinion. This Court, by an order dated 18.01.2005 directed the petitioners case to be referred to a Medical Board to get a fresh opinion regarding his fitness. Pursuant to the direction, petitioners case was referred to the opinion of the Medical Board. 5. The Medical Board, found that he was unfit for Army Service due to Hyperhidrosis Pitted Keratolysis. After the said report was submitted to this Court, the petitioner filed an objection statement dated 01.082005,. He also enclosed a medical certificate from a Government Doctor, Perunthurai dated 18.07.2005, which reads as follows:- "This is to certify, that Mr.M.Balasubbramani, aged 29 years has got scars due to old warts over left wrist and Hyperhidrosis and pitted Keratolysis. They are unrelated to each other. Pitted Keratolysis is a simple skin disease which occurs over soles and which could be easily controlled by ointments like vaseline. Hyperhidrosis is an entity, which every body could get in new environments and it is not a separate disease. 6. By the impugned order dated 111. 1999 the petitioner was informed by the 1st respondent, which reads as follows:- "You have been invalided out of service by medical board wef 18 Nov., 1999 (FN/AN) being medically unfit. Credit balance, if any will be remitted by AD Arty, Records, Nasik Road Camp as and when the accounts are finalised". 7. Further when the petitioner sent a representation for reconsidering their decision, the 1st respondent by an order dated 25.02.2000, informed the petitioner, which is as follows:- "You have been enrolled on 05 Jul 99 and invalided out from service on 19 Nov 99. As you have been declared unfit for Army Service by Invaliding Medical Board, you cannot be reinstated. 2. As you have been declared unfit for Army Service by Invaliding Medical Board, you cannot be reinstated. 2. Your disability has existed before enrolment and could not be detected. Hence your enrolment has been declared as fraudulent enrolment. Period you served in the Army is required to be regularised by Govt of India and it takes considerable time. However, necessary action for final settlement of your acct is being taken and you will be intimated as and when accts are finally settled". 8. When the petitioner made yet another representation dated 03.05.2001, he was informed by the respondents by a reply dated 15.06.2001, which reads as follows:- "Your case has been forwarded to PAO(OR) Artillery, Lekhanagar Nasik-9 for finalisation. PAO(OR) Artillery has objected that the disability for which you have been invalided out from service was existed before your enrolment as indicated by Medical authority on page No.3 of the Invaliding Medical Board. The disability could not have been detected by the President of Medical Officer at the time of your enrolment. Hence your case has been deemed as fraudulent enrolment and required to be regularized under the order of Government of India. The case for regularization of infructuous expenditure incurred from the date of your enrolment to date of discharge/invalided out from service is being initiated by AD Arty Centre, Nasik Road Camp, and this will take considerable time for finalisation". 9. Thereafter the petitioner sent further representation dated 12.06.2002, which was rejected by an order dated 13.07.2002. His final representation dated 26.04.2003 was again rejected by an order dated 05.06.2003. The petitioner was corresponding for over 4 years on the very same issue. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents was arbitrary and the latest medical certificate produced from a Civilian Doctor shows that the ailment will not disqualify him from continuing in the respondents service. 10. In response to the said contention, the respondents have averred in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, which is as follows:- "It is submitted that they are not superficial skin lesions as claimed by him in paragraphs 6 and 7. It is a recurrent lesion and may recur at any time, which may lead to dissemination and involvement of other parts of the body also. It is a recurrent lesion and may recur at any time, which may lead to dissemination and involvement of other parts of the body also. As explained above persons with such diseases are a threat to own life as well as others life through inept handling of arms and ammunitions. It is further submitted that the decision given by the competent authority to invalid petitioner is treated as final. Assessment of disablement and acceptance of attributability/aggravation in cases of disabilities other than injuries are medical issues. Views on such medical issues shall be given by the competent authority. No comments can be offered for his approaching to Doctor in Civil Hospitals after his invalidment from service". 11. In the light of the defence taken by the respondents, the learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that a judicial review over such matters are clearly impermissible. In this context, the learned counsel referred to an unreported Judgment of the Division Bench in the case of R.Paramasivam vs. Union and India in W.A.NO.3143 of 2004 dated 27.06.2005, where in identical circumstances this Court refused to judicially review the order of the Government rejecting the claim for disability pension. 12. In the aforesaid case in paragraphs 3 and 4, the Division Bench had observed as follows:- "3. This Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over administrative decisions. The scope of judicial review of administrative decisions is very limited. It is true that while prior to 1947 the Courts would not undertake judicial review of administrative decisions, but after the historical decision of the House of Lords in the Wednesbury case (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd., vs. Wednesbury Corporation, (1947) 2. All. L.R.680) the law was slightly changes and it was held that there can be judicial review of administrative decisions but that can only be done only on certain very limited grounds, vide State of N.C.T. of Delhi vs.Sanjeev, AIR 2005 SC 2080 . The Court cannot ordinarily sit in appeal over the decision of the administrator, but can only look into the manner of reaching the said decision. In the present case, we cannot question the decision of the Medical Board and we cannot sit in appeal over the same. 4. The Court cannot ordinarily sit in appeal over the decision of the administrator, but can only look into the manner of reaching the said decision. In the present case, we cannot question the decision of the Medical Board and we cannot sit in appeal over the same. 4. Our view get support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Baljit Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 315 = 1997 (1) SLR 98 and the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurdip Singh (retd.) Subedar (Rony Lt) vs. Union of India, 1997 (5) SLR 341.". .13. The petitioner by virtue of the interim direction also had the benefit of a further review by the Medial Board and a fresh opinion was also obtained. That opinion had gone against the petitioners contention. 14. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act (1 of 1995) (for short Disability Act) and contended that the respondents cannot discharge the petitioner on account of the disability acquired by him since the said Act prohibits an employer from doing so. Further by placing reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass and Anr. vs. Punjab State Electricity Board reported in 2008 AIR SCW 534 = 2008(1) SCC 579 , it was contended that he is entitled for reinstatement with all the other attendant benefits. .15. In response to this argument, in the counter affidavit, in paragraph 12, it has been averred as follows:- ."..All categories of combatants of the Armed Forces are exempt from Section 47 of the Persons with Disability Act, 1995 as per notification dated 28 Mar.2002. " 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the exemption granted to the Armed Forces under the Disability Act came into force only in March 2002 whereas the petitioner was discharged in November 1999 and that the exemption can only be prospective. The petitioner is entitled to get protection under Section 47 of the Disability Act. This argument cannot be accepted because the exemption granted to the Armed force is to reiterate the position that the Armed Forces are not covered by the Disability Act. The petitioner is entitled to get protection under Section 47 of the Disability Act. This argument cannot be accepted because the exemption granted to the Armed force is to reiterate the position that the Armed Forces are not covered by the Disability Act. Once the Disability Act does not apply to the Armed Forces, placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court does not advance the cause of the petitioner. In the light of the above, both contentions must fail. 17. In view of the binding precedents cited and the limited judicial review available to this Court, the writ petition will have to be necessarily dismissed. All the miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.